I find the whole notion that only Camilla must be punished for her role in her husband's failed marriage and not be allowed to use her lawful title ridiculous.

The Queen if she wanted could have refused permission for Charles and Camilla to marry. She could have forced his hand -Camilla or the throne but she didn't.

I agree.
Charles and Camilla seem comfortable together.
Some people will always blame her for the wreck of Charles and Dina's marriage.
But I think the marriage was doomed from the start, simply because Charles and Diana were not suited.

In any event, that was a long time ago, and it is time to move on. Life is for the living.

"Queen Camilla" has never been feasible in practice. Charles knows it and that is why the PoW's official website still mantains that "it is intended" that she will be known as the Princess Consort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal rob

Poll are only a waste of time or money when you don't get the answer you want!!!!Otherwise they do give a bit of a view the way people are thinking

Polls, EXCLUSIVE or otherwise are a total waste of time and money. You only have to look at the "Polls" prior to the last election in the US to see that. Now a legally binding referendum . . . now that is worth the money even if you don't like the result.

You'll never believe how funny, weird and downright comical I find people that don't understand the British or even the members of the Commonwealth's mindset. Those that think the Queen announces her heir and, were I to believe the magazines and Youtube clips that are hailing her for naming William and Catherine supposedly gushing that she didn't feel quite ready for the big guns. They are so amazingly ponderous and stately in their gushing garbage that I find them endlessly entertaining.

But, here's the facts: Charles will succeed his mother as King and Camilla will be his Queen. Now should she want to be called "Princess" she can be. Now she won't be Princess of anything because King Charles isn't a Prince.

Just to skew the dialogue, when HM and the DoE married the media referred to him as "Prince Philip" but he wasn't a Prince!

__________________

__________________MARG"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes

Well at least Philip was a Prince for several years before he gave up his title to become a British citizen. How many times do you hear Diana being called Princess Diana or the British monarch being called the Queen of England or Charles, William and George as future Kings of England. All of this is wrong.

The line of succession is governed by law. A wife takes her husband's title is English common law. Any poll is meaningless about the law until the government makes a move to change the law. Is the U.K. Parliament and the Government of the other commonwealth realms going to pass legislation to strip Charles of his place in the line of succession? No they aren't. 100% of people polled can say Mia Tindall should be monarch after QElI because she is more spunky than George. It doesn't mean anything.

The newspapers and their polls have an agenda : they want to make a king.
When you see the extraordinaries manipulations of public opinion from the DM, the Sun etc... concerning the Brexit, the EU, migrants and their deep influences on the UK political life, it's just too tempting to try to influence the ultimate frontier of the social system : the Monarchy.
They tried 20 years ago, and in a way succeeded to make the Queen and the BRF bend. They will try again, just to see how far they they can go...

From what I understand, the British Monarchy is very popular. Especially, with the young royals leading the future.

What I don't like; the media using Diana to make it seem like Charles isn't a proper future King and making it seem like it's William that should be the next monarch. It's absolutely horrible for the media to use Diana's memory in such a manner. It's totally distasteful and not fair to the monarchy and the people.

__________________"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

With all due respect Prince Charles has been in a waiting position for so long, that he is basically the "eternal reserve".

And looking apart from the issues he has had in his personal life, he glamour factor is descending while W&K is ascending.
Not to mention that many no doubt question the logic of putting a man on the throne who has reached retirement age.

Prince Charles is a prime example of the problem we are going to see more and more of: The monarchs live so long nowadays that it makes more sense to put the grandchild on the throne.
He is a living argument for why abdications should perhaps become the norm, rather than the exception.
Prince Charles is not a life wasted waiting, but he might be an opportunity wasted. In other words: What mark would he have put on Britain and the BRF had his mother died or retired 20 years ago?
Now that opportunity has passed.

Prince Charles is a prime example of the problem we are going to see more and more of: The monarchs live so long nowadays that it makes more sense to put the grandchild on the throne.

[...].

Amen. Look at the frail Emperor Akihito, the frail King Albert II, the frail King Juan Carlos, all of them can live on, let us say 10 more years, which would mean that Naruhuto, Philippe and Felipe all join the sixty-something club of Heirs.

The for years and years ailing King Bhumibol or Pope John Paul II are also examples why abdications are not that bad.

Leaves Queen Beatrix (2013) or Grand-Duke Jean (2000) who seemingly abdicated in -so to see- great health but that probably has more to do with the tradition in the Houses of Nassau that the royal prerogative is handed over in the hands of a younger generation, when they think this serves the country and the monarchy best.

For so far the abdications in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and the Vatican did no harm. On the contrary, I would say... Also the coming abdication of Emperor Akihito will probably have an uplifting effect on the Japanese monarchy, now symbolized by two very old and frail and breakable people.

Sadly most people don't understand what Charles has achieved with The Princes Trust and so do see his a 'life wasted waiting'.

The press don't help with their constant negative stories about him and rarely anything positive.

The BRF does have a problem due to the Queen's longevity which may very well see a need for an abdication in the future for the monarch to survive - it won't be either The Queen or Charles but I can see William abdicating and relatively young as well - even in his 60s so that George is in his early 30s with maybe a young wife and children. He may even encourage legislation to be past to set an automatic 'abdication' or 'retirement' age.

By the time Charles is crowned (I'm using 10 years since that is totally possible) William will be in his early/mid 40's and the kids will be pre-teen/teens. I expect, baring any sort of scandal, their popularity will increase by then (the Cambridges)...poor Charles will always be overshadowed and probably not receive the recognition for any good he's done.

Sadly most people don't understand what Charles has achieved with The Princes Trust and so do see his a 'life wasted waiting'....

Sadly, Charles has failed to connect with his future subjects in a way that they would understand his achievements. He can't rely on people to automatically understand; it's his case to make or to have made. The first things I think of when I consider the POW are his relationships with women...and his wardrobe. I am well-educated and well- read, and I have spent a lot of time in the UK. I'm well aware of the Princes Trust, but Charles' personal life has obscured his professional life. Sad, but true (IMO).

__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

With all due respect Prince Charles has been in a waiting position for so long, that he is basically the "eternal reserve".

And looking apart from the issues he has had in his personal life, he glamour factor is descending while W&K is ascending.
Not to mention that many no doubt question the logic of putting a man on the throne who has reached retirement age.

Prince Charles is a prime example of the problem we are going to see more and more of: The monarchs live so long nowadays that it makes more sense to put the grandchild on the throne.
He is a living argument for why abdications should perhaps become the norm, rather than the exception. Prince Charles is not a life wasted waiting, but he might be an opportunity wasted. In other words: What mark would he have put on Britain and the BRF had his mother died or retired 20 years ago?
Now that opportunity has passed.

1. Had the Queen abdicated 20 years ago from 16 countries and stepped down as head of the Commonwealth, and let the then very unpopular/controversial Charles succeed, then we wouldn't have had any Britich monarchy today.

2. And then we wouldn't have had our amazing iconic Queen with her Jubilees, walkabouts (from 1970-2012), her Commonwealth visits with huge crowds, all here diplomatic efforts, we wouldn't have seen other State leaders admiring/praising the British monarch as we see today, we wouldn't have seen US presidents say this:

Quote:

I confess I've also come back to wish Her Majesty the Queen a very happy 90th birthday. Earlier today, Michelle and I had the honor to join Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh as their guests at Windsor Castle, where we conveyed the good wishes of the American people.

I have to say I have never been driven by a Duke of Edinburgh before. (Laughter.) And I can report that it was very smooth riding. As for Her Majesty, the Queen has been a source of inspiration for me, like so many people around the world. She is truly one of my favorite people. And should we be fortunate enough to reach 90, may we be as vibrant as she is. She’s an astonishing person, and a real jewel to the world and not just to the United Kingdom.

We wouldn't have seen her amazing smile, her kindness, seen her visiting hospitals etc from 1952-2012, seen her as focal point during tragic events as in 2005 and 2017.

Much of this is due to her longevity and very long reign.

3. And had the Queen abdicated (against her people's wishes) 20 years ago and the monarchy had survived, Charles had probably been an unpopular monarch.

4. And had he been monarch 20 years ago, then it had been an opportunity wasted. As a constitutional monarchc, he couldn't have done anything of the good work he has done for over 40 years.

5. And Charles age has nothing to do with the fact that William are the preferred choice to succeed the Queen.

6. Some says that the monarch in the UK are most popular when they are very young (as the Queen was in 1950s) and when they are old because the Queen's popularity/approval has been enormously high after she turned 80.

7. I don't agree with that, because the Queen has alwais been popular, also in the months after Diana died.

8. Her Ipsos MORI approval ratings was above 70% in the 1990s (also in December 1997), it was at 66% in March 1998, but was back at 73% in August 1998 and has been at 80/90% after 2002.

While we see that people in other monarcies (expept from Norway) wants the older monarch to abdicate because the heir and spouse are young/popular, that wasen't the case in the UK when Charles was young and popular.

From Ipsos MORI: Do you think that the Queen should abdicate at some stage, or should she remain Queen as long as possible?

Duc_et_Pair, this isn't about Emperor Akihito, King Albert II, King Juan Carlos, the pope or the dutch royal family. And some polls have shown a weakening of the support for the monarchy in the Netherlands after the abdication.

Spain: Juan Carlos had to go because of his stupidity/scandals and selfishness. It was necessary to save the monarchy.

The Pope: He is a elected (by the cardinals) dictator in a tiny state and the powerful controversial head of a church with about 1 billion members. And John Paul II should have abdicated when he become to frail, the same with Benedict XVI. But the old out of touch cardinals who elects the pope are always choosing old out of touch people to secure their own interests. And (as I've said before) you can't compare the Vatican/Pope with a proper country or a constitutional monarch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Sadly most people don't understand what Charles has achieved with The Princes Trust and so do see his a 'life wasted waiting'.

The press don't help with their constant negative stories about him and rarely anything positive.

The BRF does have a problem due to the Queen's longevity which may very well see a need for an abdication in the future for the monarch to survive - it won't be either The Queen or Charles but I can see William abdicating and relatively young as well - even in his 60s so that George is in his early 30s with maybe a young wife and children. He may even encourage legislation to be past to set an automatic 'abdication' or 'retirement' age.

I wrote this in the 'After Elizabeth' thread, and it fits as an ansver to your post as well:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY

1. He gets credit from the media all the time, his approval ratings are at around 70% and 60% thinks he's going to be a good king? Not bad for a man who has received so much criticism.

2. Is he going to be popular/beloved and admirred like his mother? No way, but I think/hope that he vill be respected.

3. Will he ever be the prefered choose to succeed the Queen? No, he wont. Why? Because people who don't follow Charles see him as a boring, distant and cold man who was mean to Diana. And they would rather have the younger William.

4. Is he all those things above? Of course not, but most people don't know about his good works or sees him on his walkabouts around the UK.

5. Did most people see him on his visit (with Camilla) to Sydney in 2015, where they drev bigger crowds than William/Kate and Harry? No, they didn't.

6. Did most people see him on his visits (with Camilla) to Romania, Italy and Austria this year, where they were mobbed by people? No, they didn't.

7. Do most people know that he is actually very good at connecting with people? No, they don't.

8. But the problem now is the 20th Anniversary of Diana's death: It has (as I thought it would) damaged the monarchy, Charles/Camilla and even our 91-year-old Queen.

I also want to add that the the media/commentators have been after William/Kate (called them boring, uncharismatic, lazy and work-shy) for years now while both Charles and Camilla have been praised as never before. Camilla has even been called popular (something she's never going to be).

William as heir:
1. His popularity in the media is likely to rise now (at least I hope so) and thats a good thing.

2. He will never have the popularity that he had among ordinary people in the UK from 2010-2013, but he's still pretty popular (not bad after the all the criticism he has received).

3. And yes William is going to be more popular as heir than his father King Charles, but that is not a problem. Frederick and Victoria are more popular than the monarchs in their countries (the same with Willem-Alexander when he was the heir).

4. William will be the popular heir (also when he gets older), if he stays away from cheating on his wife, interventions in politics and don't does stupid interviews. He has never done any of this things and I dont't think he's likely to start now.

William as monarch:
1. Not going to be loved/admired as his grandmother, but is likely to be quite popular.

2. I for one (because I'm a big fan of him) think he's going to do a great job and he reminds me about HM.

Charles: He is going to be more respected in the media (although he already is) when he becomes the monarch, and I think (as I said above) that he's going to be respected (but not popular) by ordinary people too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas

Sadly, Charles has failed to connect with his future subjects in a way that they would understand his achievements. He can't rely on people to automatically understand; it's his case to make or to have made. The first things I think of when I consider the POW are his relationships with women...and his wardrobe. I am well-educated and well- read, and I have spent a lot of time in the UK. I'm well aware of the Princes Trust, but Charles' personal life has obscured his professional life. Sad, but true (IMO).

I don't think this is the right thread for this discussion, but I answer it above in my post.

__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.

What I don't like about polls is that, for the most part, its a popularity contest as in "who do you like better". Young, charming, good looking always seems to be more favorable than the graying, doddering, older bordering on geezerhood people.

Youth identifies with youth more than they do with an older generation and the older generation is encouraged to do what they can to keep looking young and fit. Adoring fans flock around the young and the beautiful whereas a well established older person can sometimes walk down the street without being recognized these days. We're bombarded with ads that promote "looking younger" "restore your hair loss" and procedures to whisk away that unwanted fat. Lets face it. Aging gracefully into one's golden years is not a popular concept.

One thing we've seen with the example of HM, The Queen and The Prince of Wales is that putting on the years does not mean being incapable of being productive and doing meaningful things with their lives. Queen Elizabeth is the prime example of an Energizer Bunny that keeps on going and is an iconic figure no matter where in the world you go. She defines the word "Queen". She defines the monarchy of the UK and Commonwealth. Frankly, she's the only royal Head of State easily recognizable by anyone unless they've been living under a rock somewhere. I'd even go as far as to say that most people cannot imagine a monarchy in the UK without this warm and wonderful woman at its helm and when presented with the idea of another person in her spot, Charles gets overlooked for the simple fact that he's been in second place for so long, its like he's grown permanently attached to that spot. An example would be that in a popular late night TV talk show (such as the Tonight show here in the US), its never been the case that the second banana ever stepped into the prime role. Once a second banana, always a second banana.

Charles, over the past several years has been quietly stepping in for his mother more and more and the transition between reigns is already taking place but its being done so smoothly and seamlessly that its not noticeable to the general public. This is going to continue as the years pass and the Queen gets older.

What is really evident to the public right now is that transition between William being a part time royal and coverage of how he is stepping into the full time royal role is in the headlines and pushed into the minds of the general public and is in our face. Its easy to think that this means that William is ready, willing and able to step into the top job. IMO, he's transitioning into preparing to be the second banana for his father. King training as the Prince of Wales (should his father invest him with that honor). Its the university of getting a degree in how to be King when his time comes. William would no more want to bypass his father for the throne than he would expect his young son, George, to step into doing investitures on his school breaks. Its a learning process and we all know that knowledge is power.

One amazing thing is that HM, The Queen can look around her and see the bunch of "bananas" she has supporting her and smile knowing they're all a good bunch that will ensure that the monarchy runs smoothly into the future. Not a bad banana in the bunch.

I think the main thing I'm trying to point out is that the transition between monarchs is already happening bit by bit and going so smoothly that people don't actively see it. These polls kind of show that because opinions on who should be the next monarch insinuates that all of a sudden there will be a "new and improved" monarchy rather than a continuation of one.

Hope this makes sense. I think I need more coffee.

__________________
I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

The polls:
1. Opinium Research always have the Queen's approval ratings and the support for the monarchy lower than others polls, but the decline in support in this poll is significant. They've had the support for the monarchy at between 64%-66% and the Queen's aproval ratings at around 70% since 2015.

2. Ipsos MORI had the support for the monarchy at above 70% from 1993 to 2006, with the exception of 1993 and 2005 when it was at 69% and 66%. They've had the support at above 75% since 2011 and at a record high 80% in 2012 for the Jubilee, and when they asked the question a bit differently last year for the 90th birthday, the support was at 86%. Support for a republic was at below 20% with the exception of 1994/2000/2001/2004/2005 when it was at around 20%. The Queen's approval ratings: Above 80% and somethimes at 90% since 2002.

3. YouGov had the support for the monarchy at 69% in 2011, 73% in 2012 and at 71% in 2015, with support for a republic at below 20% with the exception of 2011. The Queen's approval ratings: Above 80% since 2012.

4. Populus had the support for the monarchy at 77% in 2010 and 2011 with support for a republic at 23%. The support was at 82% in 2012 with support for a republic at 18%.

5. Sky and ComRes had the support for the monarchy at 70% with support for a republic at around 20% in 2015 and 2016.

__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.

If Opinium's last poll was six months ago, I'd want to see more evidence that this has anything to do with the recent stories. Especially if support is really only at the "lowest level in two years" using their questions and methodology.

There is more than an element of hypocritical judgementalism in all this, since over 50% of respondents in a UK Poll this week say 'had they had sufficient assets to do so', they TOO would 'put their money offshore', and seek to avoid paying Tax.

There is more than an element of hypocritical judgementalism in all this, since over 50% of respondents in a UK Poll this week say 'had they had sufficient assets to do so', they TOO would 'put their money offshore', and seek to avoid paying Tax.

Hear Hear Hear!!

Nothing outside any Law,just a clever use of the wormholes.And be honest,if we got a chance to do so we would all do that too.No hypocrites,and certainly not present day media...or what calls itself that..can change that.

And British polls,..haha...oh well...after the Brexit bs we all know what british polls are worth...a lot of trouble and pain...haha